Media

Studies

Helpdesk

Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.

Former UK drugs tsar Professor David Nutt said that too many bankers who took the drug were “overconfident” and so “took more risks” and said that not only did it lead to the current crisis in this country, but also the 1995 collapse of Barings bank.

He said cocaine was perfect for their "culture of excitement and drive and more and more and more", adding: “Bankers use cocaine and got us into this terrible mess. It is a 'more' drug."

Prof Nutt is not a stranger to making controversial claims about drugs. His latest attack is on the Government for “absurd” and “insane” laws dealing with magic mushrooms, ecstasy and cannabis, which he said were hindering medical research because regulations meant one of the ingredients - psilocybin, which is used to treat depression - was so hard to get hold of.

He was sacked as the Government’s most senior drugs advisor in 2009 after publishing a paper saying that there was "not much difference" between the harm caused by riding and ecstasy. Society, he argued, did not always "adequately balance" all of the risks inherent in it.

He was ordered to apologise by the then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who accused him of trivializing the dangers of taking drugs. But he went on to claim that alcohol and tobacco were more dangerous than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis, and was fired after later criticizing the moral tone of the Government’s policy making.

In his latest broadside, Prof Nutt, 61, professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, he said that magic mushrooms, which were banned in 2005, were done so by the Conservatives to “goad” Tony Blair, meaning he has to pay £6,000 for a license, which was “bonkers”, or face buying it on the streets, which "my ethics committee wouldn't allow".

He said; "The reason we haven't started the study is because finding companies who could manufacture the drug and who are prepared to go through the regulatory hoops to get the licence, which can take up to a year and triple the price, is proving very difficult. The whole situation is bedevilled by this primitive, old-fashioned attitude that Schedule 1 drugs could never have therapeutic potential."

He told the Observer that being prevented on such grounds greatly hinders his research into evidence that psilocybin shuts down an area of the brain that is overactive in depression, therefore potentially blocking negative thought patterns.

Prof Nutt also accused the coalition of having "chickened out" of minimum pricing on alcohol, a move that has been proved in other countries to curb binge drinking. "Pathetic," he said. "I mean, the Lib Dems are sensible. They support these policies."

Comments

Sort Comments By

Good article. I agree mostly with this Prof. Nutt (lol I'm sure has been called Professor Nutjob), especially about the fact that alcohol and tobacco are just as or even more so harmful than many illegal drugs. I find that people use the law to guide their knowledge and their morals way too much - it's more acceptable to be an alcoholic or a smoker, which involve people being addicts, than drug addicts, who are similarly just addicts in the end too. It all goes back to stigma and the existence for some laws are not always in relation to the actual danger of the drug, such as pointed out when Prof Nutt mentioned the reason magic mushrooms are banned (and good point about the loopholes companies have to go through).

I am sure people do not equate high end bankers with cocaine use, but I believe it was (probably not so much any more) a trending thing, especially when such people can consistently afford it. There was one Intervention episode where the guy was a cocaine addict who was previously rich and a high paid reputable lawyer, but his cocaine use lost him everything. This has all been shown in movies too, not that they are fact, but it provides a good visual of what cocaine/drug use might look like among the people we least expect. They do cocaine like it's nothing.